If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Roger wrote:
OTOH High performance, which the Arrow is not, makes a really big difference with usually much faster, slipperier, and much less forgiving aircraft that require not only thinking much farther ahead, For another data point: I fly both a 182 and a 182RG in our club. Both are HP. But the complex is faster and more slippery, and therefore more demanding of forethought. - Andrew |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 21:10:31 -0400, Andrew Gideon
wrote: Roger wrote: OTOH High performance, which the Arrow is not, makes a really big difference with usually much faster, slipperier, and much less forgiving aircraft that require not only thinking much farther ahead, For another data point: I fly both a 182 and a 182RG in our club. Both are HP. But the complex is faster and more slippery, and therefore more demanding of forethought. It doesn't take a large difference in speed to require a different mind set. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com - Andrew |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
OTOH High performance, which the Arrow is not, makes a really big
difference with usually much faster, slipperier, and much less forgiving aircraft that require not only thinking much farther ahead, but learning the aircraft far better than say a 172 or Cherokee which are far more forgiving of mistakes. The first high performance plane I ever soloed (235 hp O-470 powered) was none of these things. It wasn't even as fast as a 172 or Cherokee. It was a taildragger, but it was the least demanding taildragger ever - less demanding than a Piper Cub or Aeronca Champ. Had it been built with tricycle gear, it would have been less demanding than a C-172. It was so undemanding that pilots with less than 500 hours were routinely turned loose in it without a checkout - as I was. Still, why reach so far? Neither the C-182 nor the Cherokee 235 have the features you ascribe to high perfromance aircraft. On the other hand, the later IO-360 powered Mooneys are not high performance, but they have all the properties you ascribe to high perfromance aircraft. The IO-360 powered Arrows do not. Why not just admit the truth? The FAA definitions of high performance and complex are meaningless. Some airplanes are relatively fast, slippery, and unforgiving as compared to others. Additional training for someone not used to these properties makes all kinds of sense. Those properties are not predictable simply by knowing whether the gear happens to move and whether the engine can make more than 200 ponies. Michael |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Plane Stopped in Midair | DM | Piloting | 53 | November 16th 04 10:08 PM |
"Radar sale to China stopped" | Mike | Military Aviation | 2 | May 28th 04 05:36 PM |
Teaching VORs / ADFs | BoDEAN | Piloting | 6 | January 7th 04 03:43 PM |
THE DAY THE 344TH STOPPED PATTON | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 56 | September 11th 03 08:28 AM |
looking for model aircraft for teaching ground school purposes | Sylvain | General Aviation | 3 | August 19th 03 01:35 AM |